What about the DNA evidence?

[stevevw]

No, one mutation would not...but the image could get a bit clearer with successive generations. If a pattern fools a predator just slightly more than another, then the organism with that pattern is more likely to reproduce more offspring with similar patterns.

Your assertion that mutations would just put out random patterns is wrong. Similar patterns can be inherited from parents, and the ones which work better, reproduce more often. The ones with which work less often, get weeded out through predation.

You keep insisting on quick changes, but evolution doesn't state this, and nobody who accepts evolution thinks that.

No im not insisting on quick changes. What im saying is i find it hard to believe that a mutation can end up with a face. Thats what they looks like and thats what i expect they are meant to be. Changing colour is one thing, having a scary blotch is another. But a specific face seems a bit hard to believe.

If it at first put out a blotch or random pattern from a mutation before it finally found the face then how would it know what to keep. A part face is not going to mean anything. I cant see that having any advantage than the many patches and marks creatures have in the bucket loads.

This seems like a face or in some cases a picture/copy of another creature different to itself which it is mimicking to scare off predictors or be some sort of mating card. Its distinct in design and a carbon copy of something not random. The parent would have to have had the complete genetics for the entire face not part of the face.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, one mutation would not...but the image could get a bit clearer with successive generations. If a pattern fools a predator just slightly more than another, then the organism with that pattern is more likely to reproduce more offspring with similar patterns.

Your assertion that mutations would just put out random patterns is wrong. Similar patterns can be inherited from parents, and the ones which work better, reproduce more often. The ones with which work less often, get weeded out through predation.

You keep insisting on quick changes, but evolution doesn't state this, and nobody who accepts evolution thinks that.

And how does an eye form? An eye is totally useless until it is fully formed. You are suggesting that in natural selection, where survival of the fittest is paramount, that creatures waste energy over hundreds of thousands or millions of years developing useless body parts until fully formed? That skulls developed eye sockets in the expectation of the need for these useless body parts in hundreds of thousands or millions of years? That pathways to the brain were set up in expectation of the eyes usefulness in hundreds of thousands or millions of years down the road?

Are you that desperate? That goes against everything natural selection and survival of the fittest stands for.

 

[46AND2]

No im not insisting on quick changes. What im saying is i find it hard to believe that a mutation can end up with a face.

A mutation [singular] is a quick change. You contradict yourself in your first two sentences.

Thats what they looks like and thats what i expect they are meant to be. Changing colour is one thing, having a scary blotch is another. But a specific face seems a bit hard to believe.

Why? Does it not make sense that the more it looks like a specific face, the better it is going to work? And that these patterns can be modified to work even better generation after generation? I don't see why it's so hard to believe that the more a pattern looks like something a predator doesn't like (or can't see) the more likely that bug is going to pass on it's pattern to successive generations.

If it at first put out a blotch or random pattern from a mutation before it finally found the face then how would it know what to keep.

It doesn't KNOW what to keep. Each stage of pattern changing that leads to the present one has to be an advantage, however slight, of the previous predominant pattern, with some allowances for the other mechanisms of evolution, such as genetic drift.

A part face is not going to mean anything.

How do you know that? Are you a bug predator? Do you know the mating preferences of those bugs?

I cant see that having any advantage than the many patches and marks creatures have in the bucket loads.

This seems like a face or in some cases a picture/copy of another creature different to itself which it is mimicking to scare off predictors or be some sort of mating card. Its distinct in design and a carbon copy of something not random. The parent would have to have had the complete genetics for the entire face not part of the face.

Again, you talk about parent to child (quick change). Of course the parent has the full face. However, could not the 100,000th generation have a "part face" in comparison to the current living specimen? And the 50,000th generation a three-quarter face? Would that not fool a predator more frequently than a half face?

 

[46AND2]

And how does an eye form? An eye is totally useless until it is fully formed.

No it isn't. In fact, we have examples of life living today which use "half-eyes" to detect light. There is PLENTY of data on the internet about the evolution of the eye. Particularly since it was used by Michael Behe in his irreducible complexity argument.

You are suggesting that in natural selection, where survival of the fittest is paramount, that creatures waste energy over hundreds of thousands or millions of years developing useless body parts until fully formed?

I am suggesting no such thing, and neither is any other proponent of evolution. That is your strawman.

That skulls developed eye sockets in the expectation of the need for these useless body parts in hundreds of thousands or millions of years? That pathways to the brain were set up in expectation of the eyes usefulness in hundreds of thousands or millions of years down the road?

Are you that desperate? That goes against everything natural selection and survival of the fittest stands for.

Are you so desperate that you'll resort to strawmen to make your argument look better?

 

[USincognito]

They also think there is more cross breeding going on than first thought. Especially among plants and sea life as their fertilization can be mixed easier because of the methods involved. It seems genetic results are not matching the tree that was built and the results are throwing up new relations between species that doesn't match the Darwinian model because of horizontal gene transfer.

Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life | Science | theguardian.com

Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog Molecular Phylogeny Proves Evolution is False. | Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog

You keep posting this, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. Among animals and especially amongst vertebrates, the amount of species to species HGT is vanishingly small.

 

[stevevw]

A mutation [singular] is a quick change. You contradict yourself in your first two sentences.

How am i saying anything about quickness. I am talking about something specific. It could take as long as it wants in natural selection. I'm talking about home does it end up with that specific face. You just said it your self, the more it looks like a face the better it will work. So when it first starts to take on this feature if it doesn't know that the face will be the best feature to start with because its random then there is going to be many mutations of random patterns. Chances of it getting the whole face in one go would be almost impossible.

So maybe it gets two dots that could be eyes, to me that means nothing. No more than any dots on anything, it doesn't make it look like anything but two dots. What if it gets a curved line. Could be a mouth but to me still doesn't means anything. Could be a nice line pattern it has. At least no more than any other marking on any creature. It certainly isn't the face which is the feature that works. The face works so well because it has the eyes , the mouth and even a nose in some cases with other parts of the plant being the head features.

Like i said before some like the butterfly have a picture of two flies that look like their feeding on a flower. This is obviously to put off other creatures. It has all that detail which is almost like nature is being Rembrandt and making a picture of another creature in nature on a completely different creature.

So your saying that it could get say a couple of marks and that will still scared off a predictor. Then those marks get passed down and eventually they turn into pictures of flies eating a flower on the wings of a butterfly. I think thats stretching it a bit. Once again a more realistic conclusion would be it was passed on complete because it only works as being complete. A mark which may be part of the fly or a mark that is supposed to be the flower isn't going to do anything. The reason it works ie because it looks like two insects feeding on a flower to put off other particular creatures that dont like what that represents. That to me would have to put made in one go complete and specific.

Why? Does it not make sense that the more it looks like a specific face, the better it is going to work? And that these patterns can be modified to work even better generation after generation? I don't see why it's so hard to believe that the more a pattern looks like something a predator doesn't like (or can't see) the more likely that bug is going to pass on it's pattern to successive generations.

As i said that a having a mark to start with doesn't look like anything. It has made that particular picture or feature of a face because that is what works with the particular predictors. It only works complete because it is specific and the only thing that deters the predictor.

It doesn't KNOW what to keep. Each stage of pattern changing that leads to the present one has to be an advantage, however slight, of the previous predominant pattern, with some allowances for the other mechanisms of evolution, such as genetic drift.

Thats why i can't see that if it doesn't know what to keep then through random mutations its made a face or mimicked insect pictures eating a flower like it was Rembrandt and shows specific design not something random.

How do you know that? Are you a bug predator? Do you know the mating preferences of those bugs?

I know because i can tell what it looks like myself and it looks like two flies eating a flower. So thats what was intended so that the predator would also see that. Its obviously made like that because it represents something that puts them off or attracts something. But it looks like two flies not a blotch or a part fly or some mark it has which would not work and benefit the butterfly.

Again, you talk about parent to child (quick change). Of course the parent has the full face. However, could not the 100,000th generation have a "part face" in comparison to the current living specimen? And the 50,000th generation a three-quarter face? Would that not fool a predator more frequently than a half face?

Like i said the part face is not going to look like a part face or anything but some marks on its surface. What does a part picture of flies eating a flower look like anyway. If its a part of something then it doesn't look like what its suppose to be there for. Then it doesn't go on with it. If you put the pattern of whatever part or the face or fly it would have i couldn't tell you what it might be. How is part of a fly going to scare anything or represent anything other than a blotch. But i can tell its two flies eating a flower and so would the predator. The complete flies eating the flower is the only specific thing that works to put off those particular creatures or act as some sort of mating symbol.

If the parent passed down a mark that was part of a fly picture then it implies that the next mutations know that they should be completing the fly picture and not just a random mark. So it goes through thousands of mutations like some kind of natural jig saw puzzle until it gets the right pattern that makes two flies eating a flower. It speaks of intelligence and of design. The picture is specific and detailed. Almost a picture painted on the surface of the butterfly.

To me it is no different to as if it had the words "go away and leave me alone" written on its wings.

 

[46AND2]

The complete flies eating the flower is the only specific thing that works to put off those particular creatures or act as some sort of mating symbol.

This is a big problem with your understanding of evolution. It is not the ONLY THING THAT WORKS. It's just what works best (so far). The various stages to that point, WOULD ALSO HAVE worked, RELATIVE TO the bugs that did not have that advantage.

All natural selection is, is giving one group of organisms opportunity to out produce others in offspring.

Maybe it's only a 10 to 9 advantage, maybe it's a 20 to 1 advantage. Over time, the odds are going to make the trait with the advantage dominant in the population.

 

[46AND2]

If the parent passed down a mark that was part of a fly picture then it implies that the next mutations know that they should be completing the fly picture and not just a random mark. So it goes through thousands of mutations like some kind of natural jig saw puzzle until it gets the right pattern that makes two flies eating a flower. It speaks of intelligence and of design. The picture is specific and detailed. Almost a picture painted on the surface of the butterfly.

To me it is no different to as if it had the words "go away and leave me alone" written on its wings.

No, it does not imply that mutations know what the goal is...and yes, thousands of mutations may be necessary in a POPULATION, not in a sequential genetic line, for a better version to arise. But once it does, it has the statistical probability of surviving better than its predecessors.

It takes time to weed out the inferior patterns. You seem to assume that ALL bugs who didn't have the fully formed face will be virtually immediately exterminated by predators. This is not true. In fact, sometimes beneficial mutations never get to be dominant, and instead go extinct themselves. This is because it is an odds thing. Just because it has better odds of surviving, doesn't mean that it necessarily will. It's nature, with lots of variables; aberrations happen--sometimes the underdog wins.

 

[stevevw]

This is a big problem with your understanding of evolution. It is not the ONLY THING THAT WORKS. It's just what works best (so far). The various stages to that point, WOULD ALSO HAVE worked, RELATIVE TO the bugs that did not have that advantage.

All natural selection is, is giving one group of organisms opportunity to out produce others in offspring.

Maybe it's only a 10 to 9 advantage, maybe it's a 20 to 1 advantage. Over time, the odds are going to make the trait with the advantage dominant in the population.

I understand that. A creature will find a niche and by adapting to it. Those adaptations are from mutations that are beneficial to it adapting and surviving. It happens through gradual changes that are taken on.

But like when evolution uses the example of say a creature growing hair in a cold climate to keep warm when it didn't have any hair before. With this example you can see how that would work. Hair follicles are stimulated into growth and they grow hair. The same as the English moth that evolutionist like to use as evidence of transition. The moth changed from a light moth to a dark moth when the trees went darker from the pollution. Though i dont see that as a transition but merely a feature it already had within its DNA.

Now with the butterfly that has the picture of what looks like 2 flies on its wings well that is different. You are saying that chance and random mutations created the picture of 2 flies eating a flower or whatever they are eating. So along the way to get that picture the shapes that would have been used were produced by random stages which would not have been anything to do with the picture of a fly but just a random blotch or mark. That first mark was still beneficial because it gave it some advantage but it had nothing to do with a picture of a fly.

So the mutations is still taken on for another reason. But we know that the reason has something to do with putting the picture of an insect on its wings to scare off predators or something to do with mating. More likely its a defense of some sort as the flies or insects stand out as looking like its a different insect sitting there, perhaps one that is more mean looking or to make it look like something else to the particular predator that is after it.

Creatures in nature have certain features that mimic other creatures. They may have camouflage like the stick insect that looks like a twig. They may make themselves look like something uninviting or dangerous. As it turns out the fly pictures are more than likely a particular fly like the sarcophagid flies. Eating these can result in myasis (maggots in your innards), since the females produce maggots (rather than eggs), which escape from the mother when she is injured, and could do so in the oesophagus, where they could cause some real damage. Not such edible fare! This is just a hypothesis and has to be tested but it is very interesting.

The actual picture on the moth is suppose to represent two flies eating some bird droppings. They say it even puts off a smell like bird droppings as well. Even the white bits on the wings are suppose to represent the light reflecting from its wings to make it look real. So it just seems like these creatures are getting these features from more than mutations. They seem to have some intelligence about it. They know which creatures to imitate in some detail and suggests they know what is best to take on for their particular situation. There are just to many things that have gone right or fallen into place and a knowledge of what sort of creatures it should mimic to be random and chance. The fly is not just any old fly made up of gradual blotches that go together like a jig saw puzzle. Its a particular fly for a particular reason. That to me speaks of an inbuilt ability to have this defense and knowledge to produce that particular picture in one go to ward off predators.
http://www.myrmecos.net/2011/08/30/a-mural-on-moth-wings/

http://bugguide.net/node/view/415645

 

[46AND2]

Now with the butterfly that has the picture of what looks like 2 flies on its wings well that is different. You are saying that chance and random mutations created the picture of 2 flies eating a flower or whatever they are eating. So along the way to get that picture the shapes that would have been used were produced by random stages which would not have been anything to do with the picture of a fly but just a random blotch or mark. That first mark was still beneficial because it gave it some advantage but it had nothing to do with a picture of a fly.

So the mutations is still taken on for another reason. But we know that the reason has something to do with putting the picture of an insect on its wings to scare off predators or something to do with mating. More likely its a defense of some sort as the flies or insects stand out as looking like its a different insect sitting there, perhaps one that is more mean looking or to make it look like something else to the particular predator that is after it.

You really can't imagine a bird being a little bit more fooled by, say, splotches that vaguely resemble eyes? Then being fooled even more if those splotches became further defined? I bet if you tried really hard, you could come up with at least a dozen different proto-patterns on that butterfly that could potentially affect how often that butterfly was preyed upon.

Okay, so the reason that the patterns changed incrementally was not because it was heading to a goal of looking like it had insects on its wings. There is no goal. We are looking at it with 20/20 hindsight. That's just what it did. It could just as easily have evolved more typical chameleon like camouflage.

And, you have to remember that predators become more adept at hunting their prey, as well. So what fooled them for a while, will be the next in line to be selected, forcing a better pattern to dominance.

ALL arguments for irreducible complexity boil down to personal incredulity. Just because YOU can't understand how less-than-present traits could be beneficial, doesn't mean nobody else can, nor does it mean it didn't happen. There's a reason why Michael Behe got destroyed in court.

 

[stevevw]

You really can't imagine a bird being a little bit more fooled by, say, splotches that vaguely resemble eyes? Then being fooled even more if those splotches became further defined? I bet if you tried really hard, you could come up with at least a dozen different proto-patterns on that butterfly that could potentially affect how often that butterfly was preyed upon.

Okay, so the reason that the patterns changed incrementally was not because it was heading to a goal of looking like it had insects on its wings. There is no goal. We are looking at it with 20/20 hindsight. That's just what it did. It could just as easily have evolved more typical chameleon like camouflage.

And, you have to remember that predators become more adept at hunting their prey, as well. So what fooled them for a while, will be the next in line to be selected, forcing a better pattern to dominance.

ALL arguments for irreducible complexity boil down to personal incredulity. Just because YOU can't understand how less-than-present traits could be beneficial, doesn't mean nobody else can, nor does it mean it didn't happen. There's a reason why Michael Behe got destroyed in court.

Im not talking about Michael behe or whoever he is. I am viewing it from how i see it and it seems others see it to. Many say it looks like a fly. But not just any fly its a particular fly that when you eat it can cause you to get a bad gut form the maggot growth. It seems that particular fly does that and the picture seems to match the fly with the red eyes and similar shape. As i said even the light reflection on the wings to make it seem more realistic. I can see how the butterfly would have this as its not just any fly it keeps predators away because its not good for them to eat these type of flies and they know it through nature. But funny enough so does the moth know it and they have this feature to match their predators. You can try to make out that the blotch can be made into anything but thats what it looks like to many and it makes sense for it to have that particular feature. It never just did it, it did it with intelligence.

That doesn't mean that evolution is not active in some form but i dont believe it can transform one creature into another. There is incredible variation and transformation within species and i think we underestimate what the genetics of a creature is capable of. We are only coming to understand more of the incredible complexity and potential abilities of the DNA. Already we are see evidence that the Darwinian tree is not as simple as evolutionist make out. There is HGT through epigentics and cross species breeding in the wild more than we have thought.

But to try and make out that a specific picture of a specific fly that wards off enemies was created by chance and a random process when it speaks of detailed knowledge of specifics in nature is another thing. You may say you can make out a dozen other shapes in that pattern well to me it looks like 2 flies feeding on something or its all a coincidence. I can name a dozen more creatures who have similar unique features that seem specifically made and show that the creature must have unique knowledge within their genetics to produce them.

 

[46AND2]

Im not talking about Michael behe or whoever he is. I am viewing it from how i see it and it seems others see it to. Many say it looks like a fly. But not just any fly its a particular fly that when you eat it can cause you to get a bad gut form the maggot growth. It seems that particular fly does that and the picture seems to match the fly with the red eyes and similar shape. As i said even the light reflection on the wings to make it seem more realistic. I can see how the butterfly would have this as its not just any fly it keeps predators away because its not good for them to eat these type of flies and they know it through nature. But funny enough so does the moth know it and they have this feature to match their predators. You can try to make out that the blotch can be made into anything but thats what it looks like to many and it makes sense for it to have that particular feature. It never just did it, it did it with intelligence.

That doesn't mean that evolution is not active in some form but i dont believe it can transform one creature into another. There is incredible variation and transformation within species and i think we underestimate what the genetics of a creature is capable of. We are only coming to understand more of the incredible complexity and potential abilities of the DNA. Already we are see evidence that the Darwinian tree is not as simple as evolutionist make out. There is HGT through epigentics and cross species breeding in the wild more than we have thought.

But to try and make out that a specific picture of a specific fly that wards off enemies was created by chance and a random process when it speaks of detailed knowledge of specifics in nature is another thing. You may say you can make out a dozen other shapes in that pattern well to me it looks like 2 flies feeding on something or its all a coincidence. I can name a dozen more creatures who have similar unique features that seem specifically made and show that the creature must have unique knowledge within their genetics to produce them.

You don't know who Michael Behe is because creationist sites are notorious for not posting sources. They take ideas and paraphrase (or directly quote) those ideas as their own. If you have studied irreducible complexity at all, you should know who he is. Even if IC is not the term you are familiar with for the concept. Sadly, you are not alone.

And every one of those dozen creatures you can name that "seem" specially made can be explained through evolution and natural selection.

Also, evolution by natural selection is not "chance" or a "random process." SELECTION is kind of the opposite of that, ya?

Mutations are random. The selection of which mutations propagate is not. It is dictated by the environment.

 

[46AND2]

As an analogy for the randomness of mutation, but the non-randomness of natural selection, take the following:

Say you have a ten by ten grid of squares on your computer screen of the colors, cyan, magenta, and yellow.

Now say a random event causes the the cyan ink in the printer to stop producing.

Are random squares going to be white when we print that grid, or only the ones which were supposed to be cyan?

 

[stevevw]

As an analogy for the randomness of mutation, but the non-randomness of natural selection, take the following:

Say you have a ten by ten grid of squares on your computer screen of the colors, cyan, magenta, and yellow.

Now say a random event causes the the cyan ink in the printer to stop producing.

Are random squares going to be white when we print that grid, or only the ones which were supposed to be cyan?

I dont know probably the ones that are left yellow and magenta. It cant produce any other color can it. So chances are its going to end up one of those colors. But what the pictures on the moths wings suggest is not only is color involved but a detailed picture mimicking a creature in nature to scare off predators. So the genetics are not only affecting the pigment of the white wings which i can understand as thats a change in the existing genes to produce a different colour.

But what else is happening is the different colors have formed not just any old blotches but a detailed picture of 2 flies eating bird droppings. Not just any old fly but the one that represents doing harm if they try to eat them. Not just that they put out a smell so that it puts off the predator that goes with the picture. All seems like more than random chance to me. Points to intelligence and a knowledge of the inner workings of nature to come up with that. Not some mutations that were randomly pulled out of a box of millions over time. Even with unlimited chances thats almost impossible to imagine. The detail of where the red head goes in its correct position on the fly and other details cannot be randomly created.

Even if you say the environment has a say it couldn't produce that detail and know the reasons for why it choose to depict that particular fly as a picture on its wings. I cant believe that mutations made a part of that particular fly or made something else that wasn't that particular fly and kept it but then later added more bits to the picture to eventually make that particular fly. The more realistic conclusion would be that it had some information within its genetics that could produce this completely as a defense for survival. Like other creatures who have particular features that put off and scare away predators. It seems to be the perfect foil for it that was within its genetics in the first place and nature made them that way.

 

[sfs]

Already we are see evidence that the Darwinian tree is not as simple as evolutionist make out.

You do realize that it is the "evolutionists" who are discovering the complexity of the tree of life, right? How could they simultaneously be publishing discoveries about horizontal gene transfer and claiming that the tree is simple?

There is HGT through epigentics and cross species breeding in the wild more than we have thought.

HGT has nothing to do with epigenetics. HGT is an interesting phenomenon and is widespread among bacteria; it can mostly be ignored for animals. Since it in no way undercuts the fact of common descent, why are do you keep bringing it up?

 

[stevevw]

You don't know who Michael Behe is because creationist sites are notorious for not posting sources. They take ideas and paraphrase (or directly quote) those ideas as their own. If you have studied irreducible complexity at all, you should know who he is. Even if IC is not the term you are familiar with for the concept. Sadly, you are not alone.

And every one of those dozen creatures you can name that "seem" specially made can be explained through evolution and natural selection.

Also, evolution by natural selection is not "chance" or a "random process." SELECTION is kind of the opposite of that, ya?

Mutations are random. The selection of which mutations propagate is not. It is dictated by the environment.

Why bring that up anyway. Im not using any creationist sites. Evolutionist seem to always bring that in more than religious people are doing. It wasn't even part of the conversation. I was simply quoting and viewing a everyday nature site that had nothing to do with the debate about evolution and religion. Well actually the site was more pro evolution because it was showing how evolution can throw up some unusual features. So if anything its more pro evolution than anything but Im not using that.

I'm just commenting on the looks of the creature and the feature it has and then why it would have this particular design. To me its a good example for intelligent design not because of Michael who ever or creationists but because it looks that way to the average person. Im not sure of any tests done on its DNA or investigations into why it should have these particular features. But it would be interesting to find out more. When i looked there was very little about it apart from some saying that evolution throws these things up so that creatures can survive but they would say that.

Also as i said before there are other factors that influence the creature and what is passed down not just picking out mutations nice and neatly to find the right one to make the feature. The environment can also have a negative effect on the creature in that if it is always under stress to escape predators for example then it can pass down traits that make it harder to survive like the loss of organizational traits or it can force the creature to adapt a particular behavior that doesn't give it an advantage. It can also effect it in positive ways as well but the fact is there is evidence that the environment can have a direct effect on what is passed down to the next generation.

There is also crossing species mating in which studies are showing can pass genes and their traits in a sideways fashion. It is showing that species can mate outside their boundaries and still produce fertile offspring in nature. Maybe the boundaries we have put them in is as straight forward as we thought. So the simple vertical passing down of genetics that Darwin portrays has influencing factors that can sabotage or sidetrack the process of natural selection. Some species features could be the result of how they behaved in their in environment and what their circumstance were at the time. Some features may have come from cross mating and were taken on down through the generations. With the moth species there are thousands of variations so chances are any combination of features can be taken on with different ones mating. So natural selection is just one way but maybe not the most dominate way either.

 

[stevevw]

You do realize that it is the "evolutionists" who are discovering the complexity of the tree of life, right? How could they simultaneously be publishing discoveries about horizontal gene transfer and claiming that the tree is simple?


HGT has nothing to do with epigenetics. HGT is an interesting phenomenon and is widespread among bacteria; it can mostly be ignored for animals. Since it in no way undercuts the fact of common descent, why are do you keep bringing it up?

I do realize that, this is more to do with more recent discoveries which are changing that older view of the darwinian model. They are saying it isn't as simple as they once thought as in vertical gene transfer. They are not saying it at the same time they are saying that they are realizing that vertical gene transfer is not the only way for genes to by affected and passed on.

I realize that epigenetics is different to HGT but i am saying it is another influencing factor on top. I bring it up HGT and epigenetics because the experts are saying it does have an effect on how genes are passed down and therefore what features and abilities a creature may end up with. The simple tree that evolution has produced in now in question and newer trees are being made that resemble bushes or hedges.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I do realize that, this is more to do with more recent discoveries which are changing that older view of the darwinian model. They are saying it isn't as simple as they once thought as in vertical gene transfer. They are not saying it at the same time they are saying that they are realizing that vertical gene transfer is not the only way for genes to by affected and passed on.

I realize that epigenetics is different to HGT but i am saying it is another influencing factor on top. I bring it up HGT and epigenetics because the experts are saying it does have an effect on how genes are passed down and therefore what features and abilities a creature may end up with. The simple tree that evolution has produced in now in question and newer trees are being made that resemble bushes or hedges.

Yes, we are finding that as technology advances the tree is becoming individual trees and bushes, merely variation within a kind. Evolutionists do not want to hear this data though, because in reality it destroys their evolutionary theories. Things are not becoming more connected as our knowledge advances, but disconnected.

The funny thing is we had to hear for 40+ years about how experiments with bacteria proved evolution amongst animals. Now that results call past beliefs into question, suddenly bacteria are no longer good for comparison. Funny how that works.

This in turn is supported by recent fossil findings of H erectus skulls. Possibly causing half a dozen previous transitional skulls to be thrown out of the books as mere variation of a single kind. Of over a dozen dinosaur species thrown out of the books as merely the young or adult version of specific kinds.

Just as the coelacanth was was thought to be the transitional star between fish and tetrapods, until of course we found one and performed DNA testing on it.

Just as Archeopteryx was once the transitional star between dinosaur and bird, until earlier true birds were found, relegating Archeopteryx to merely another dinosaur.

With each new generation and advancement in technology and knowledge we find those missing links are missing more and more, as the claimed transitional species slowly get turned into mere variations of existing kind.

50+ years of mutational research showing nothing new is ever formed, merely variation of what already existed within the genome. Quite frankly the stuck record of repeating excuses for lack of evolutionary evidence is getting very annoying.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why bring that up anyway. Im not using any creationist sites. Evolutionist seem to always bring that in more than religious people are doing. It wasn't even part of the conversation. I was simply quoting and viewing a everyday nature site that had nothing to do with the debate about evolution and religion. Well actually the site was more pro evolution because it was showing how evolution can throw up some unusual features. So if anything its more pro evolution than anything but Im not using that.

I'm just commenting on the looks of the creature and the feature it has and then why it would have this particular design. To me its a good example for intelligent design not because of Michael who ever or creationists but because it looks that way to the average person. Im not sure of any tests done on its DNA or investigations into why it should have these particular features. But it would be interesting to find out more. When i looked there was very little about it apart from some saying that evolution throws these things up so that creatures can survive but they would say that.

Also as i said before there are other factors that influence the creature and what is passed down not just picking out mutations nice and neatly to find the right one to make the feature. The environment can also have a negative effect on the creature in that if it is always under stress to escape predators for example then it can pass down traits that make it harder to survive like the loss of organizational traits or it can force the creature to adapt a particular behavior that doesn't give it an advantage. It can also effect it in positive ways as well but the fact is there is evidence that the environment can have a direct effect on what is passed down to the next generation.

There is also crossing species mating in which studies are showing can pass genes and their traits in a sideways fashion. It is showing that species can mate outside their boundaries and still produce fertile offspring in nature. Maybe the boundaries we have put them in is as straight forward as we thought. So the simple vertical passing down of genetics that Darwin portrays has influencing factors that can sabotage or sidetrack the process of natural selection. Some species features could be the result of how they behaved in their in environment and what their circumstance were at the time. Some features may have come from cross mating and were taken on down through the generations. With the moth species there are thousands of variations so chances are any combination of features can be taken on with different ones mating. So natural selection is just one way but maybe not the most dominate way either.

Because they do not want to discuss the science and instead turn it into a religious debate, because the science does not support their views about evolution. When your science becomes an unfalsifiable religious view, one prefers to enter into religious debates instead of scientific ones. That they claim their views are scientific, when they can not be tested shows in reality they merely practice a religion. No one can test the DNA of creatures that supposedly existed 65+ million years ago.

Despite the fact that for 100 years they never bothered to look for soft tissue because the age precluded it, Then when found by accident suddenly they find all sorts of excuses in an attempt to explain it away, even though their excuse for never looking for it was it was impossible because they claimed soft tissue could not survive past 2 million years.

Despite the fact that all dinosaur bones radiocarbon dated show in the age range of 25,000 to 40,000 years, in line with the finding of soft tissue. But they will devise Fairie Dust explanations instead of rethinking their evolutionary views.

We have over a dozen different theories of how evolution happens, yet are told the evidence is conclusive. So conclusive in fact evolutionists can not even agree amongst themselves about how it happened, but the evidence is unquestionable. If they say so.

 

[Dizredux]

The funny thing is we had to hear for 40+ years about how experiments with bacteria proved evolution amongst animals. Now that results call past beliefs into question, suddenly bacteria are no longer good for comparison. Funny how that works.

Mmmm lets take a look at this. How do you not pay attention to things like this:

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988? The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010.

Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to use citric acid as a carbon source in an aerobic environment.

From: wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

This has had a major impact on the study of evolution and is considered as strong evidence supporting it. Biologists think the studies are very important in relation to evolution. Why do you differ with their opinion, this, after all, is their field?.

To make your statement have any credence, you have to find a way to deal with these studies and the opinions of professional biologists.


Next let us look at Archaeopteryx

Just as Archeopteryx was once the transitional star between dinosaur and bird, until earlier true birds were found, relegating Archeopteryx to merely another dinosaur.

From the wiki site on Archeopteryx,

Archaeopteryx sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel ("original bird" or "first bird"), is a genus of early bird that is transitional between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds. Since the late nineteenth century, it had been generally accepted by palaeontologists, and celebrated in lay reference works, as being the oldest known bird (member of the group Avialae).[1] However, older potential avialans have since been identified, including Anchiornis, Xiaotingia, and Aurornis.

Archaeopteryx is still very much considered as *a* transitional between feathered dinosaurs and birds, just not the only one nor the oldest. Paleontologists seem to be very convinced of this this is their field of expertise

The opinions of professional Paleontologists is something you again are going to have to deal with if your statements are to hold water.


Dizredux